Today I tested iTunes on the new MacBooks as well as older PowerBook G4 and PowerMac G5 systems. On each Mac I converted songs using the "Convert Selection to AAC..." feature and noted the rip speed as displayed in iTunes. The sources were unprotected AAC files and they were re-encoded using AAC. Unfortunately, identical files were not used on all machines. The machines were updated and had plenty of RAM. Here's the results:

Now I expected the PowerPC processors to win, but not by so much! I'm sure the G4 and G5 processors outperform the Core Duo chip using their vector processing units. I am surprised how far behind the new MacBook is, especially since it is dual core. However, the MacBook's testing environment was the least controlled and the media file was relatively small, so perhaps it was just getting warmed up.

Aside from this test, my other experiences with the MacBook are positive and favorable, including using Photoshop under Rosetta. The GPU in the new MacBooks played HD video very well, far better than G4 PowerBook I'd expect. And the boot speed of the intel systems is insane!

I could write more about using the MacBook but this concludes my test.

--
Followup Notes: My initial Macworld MacBook test produced erroneous results and an encoding speed of 4.5x. Later I returned to Macworld and performed a much more structured test and got a far better result: 20x. Since much of this discussion is based around the original results I'm leaving this post as-is, however MacBook performance is far better than indicated. Please read the rest of this thread for more information.

Originally posted by BRussellHmm, odd. You used the term rip as if it was from a CD, but they were already AAC files? I don't understand why the new machine would be so much slower, unless it was the optical drive.

True, "ripping" generally implies two aspects: reading data from an audio CD and encoding it. However, to eliminate the CD mechanism as a bottleneck, I skipped that step by reading music off the HD and only encoded the music files. So yes, technically I should probably say "encode speed", but I thought I was clear in the testing methods and besides, the key part of ripping music is the encoding process anyhow.

so i'm shocked!!!! so slowwww!!!
ripping speed is important for me .... hey the speed of the macbook pro is the worst i've heard about.. my old old emac do the job at 7,5x .. i can't believe what i read!!!
me, who wanted this new macbook pro.. never never never...

Originally posted by taliesinThe guys at the booth said they were prototypes, not production models. Chances are the that these problems will be dealt with (or have been dealt with) by the release date.....I hope

Except the iMac, which has actually been released, has the same problem:

Originally posted by e1618978I thought that converting to universal binaries was very easy? Shouldn't all the apple applications in 10.4.4 already be in universal binary format?

Easy for some apps that were written natively on OS X right from the start. But remember that iTunes was written on OS 9 and comes from the SoundJam codebase. There's probably some very ugly code in there.

I've been hoping that Apple would rewrite iTunes from scratch for over 3 years now. It hasn't happened so far...and look at what trouble iTunes gets into now.

Still doesn't explain why the Windows version of iTunes is faster but oh well.

seems to me that itunes 6.0.2 is "universal" .. i did chek with right click on itunes and "read the informations" (in french macosx LIRE LES INFORMATIONS..) and it mentions "Universal".. so i guess iTunes is ready for intel. So i can't explain the so slow import speed...

Originally posted by keikojaaseems to me that itunes 6.0.2 is "universal" .. i did chek with right click on itunes and "read the informations" (in french macosx LIRE LES INFORMATIONS..) and it mentions "Universal".. so i guess iTunes is ready for intel. So i can't explain the so slow import speed...

Perhaps you did not understand what kim kap sol said above. iTunes is an old Mac application with code from the OS 9 days, something that would make it difficult to convert it properly into a Universal Binary. Mind you, it has been converted but it is not yet optimal. So it seems at least.

Originally posted by PBPerhaps you did not understand what kim kap sol said above. iTunes is an old Mac application with code from the OS 9 days, something that would make it difficult to convert it properly into a Universal Binary. Mind you, it has been converted but it is not yet optimal. So it seems at least.

yes. i did understand about 0s9. but what i dont understand
is that itunes, at my job, on a pentium 4, is encoding fast at 20x minimum. so pentium is intel x86, itunes is apple and it is possible to make itunes scream on a pc.. why not on a intel mac?

Guys, really I don't know what's going on here. We discuss on the basis that the test Xool ran is correct. If so, then there is an obvious problem with the conversion of iTunes to UB, since the new iMac hardware should be on par with a dual core Power Mac. I don't think that we can tell anything more without more info or evidence.

People seem to be forgetting that this simple test targets aspects of iTunes and QuickTime that are core strengths of the G4 and G5 PowerPC chips. I expect that in the coming months, QuickTime will be further optimized to use the new intel chips which will likely benefit XP users too.

Later today I plan to return to Macworld and test the MacBooks with a standardized file and better control the test environment. That is, if they'll let me.

Originally posted by XoolPeople seem to be forgetting that this simple test targets aspects of iTunes and QuickTime that are core strengths of the G4 and G5 PowerPC chips. I expect that in the coming months, QuickTime will be further optimized to use the new intel chips which will likely benefit XP users too.

Later today I plan to return to Macworld and test the MacBooks with a standardized file and better control the test environment. That is, if they'll let me.

Er... no. 4.5 x ripping speed is not just due to improperly optimised code. Something is wrong. See the posts about running Windows iTunes on x86. There is no excuse for this abysmal performance.

Originally posted by Mr. HEr... no. 4.5 x ripping speed is not just due to improperly optimised code. Something is wrong. See the posts about running Windows iTunes on x86. There is no excuse for this abysmal performance.

Yes...I think we've established over and over again that something *is* indeed wrong.

And I'm 100% sure that Apple will rectify the problem in the coming months. Believe me.

I went back to Macworld today and performed more scientific tests with the new MacBook. I'll post more details later tonight but I'll post my revised iTunes times now.

I brought the same track I used with my G5 to MacWorld and re-encoded it using iTunes. It was read off the HD from the iTunes library and all other apps were closed.

Today the MacBook ripped at 20x which is far better than I expected.

I'm not sure what impacted the previous test and it might have been related to the source file, but this time it was fairly controlled and I'd stand by these results. Again for comparison, an existing G4 PowerBook ripped at 12.5x and my Rev A G5 tower ripped at 25x.

Originally posted by XoolI went back to Macworld today and performed more scientific tests with the new MacBook. I'll post more details later tonight but I'll post my revised iTunes times now.

I brought the same track I used with my G5 to MacWorld and re-encoded it using iTunes. It was read off the HD from the iTunes library and all other apps were closed.

Today the MacBook ripped at 20x which is far better than I expected.

I'm not sure what impacted the previous test and it might have been related to the source file, but this time it was fairly controlled and I'd stand by these results. Again for comparison, an existing G4 PowerBook ripped at 12.5x and my Rev A G5 tower ripped at 25x.

Originally posted by Gene CleanWell, I don't know about MacBook Pro, but my now 3 years old Sony VAIO with a P4 2.4Ghz and 768MB or RAM, using iTunes, rips CDs at 14x.

So it definitely isn't the chip, as others have pointed out too.

I ripped a CD using a new T60 IBM/Lenova Dual Core 1.86GHz. It rips at 24 times so the iTunes in the MacBook was definitely a non-Intel version.The new chips leave the G4's in the dust in EVERY aspect.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.

I'm putting together comprehensive results for all tests I've performed but its taking slightly longer than planned, sorry guys. I'll get it up here later today, but to whet your appetite I'll say that HD content playback was silky smooth and better than my G5, which says a lot.

Originally posted by XoolI'm putting together comprehensive results for all tests I've performed but its taking slightly longer than planned, sorry guys. I'll get it up here later today, but to whet your appetite I'll say that HD content playback was silky smooth and better than my G5, which says a lot.

Anyhow, more details later.

I just unwrapped my new iMac Core Duo (20"), so if anyone would like something specific tested, give a yell. Caveat: It will have only 512MB for the next two days (Newegg time...).

Picked it up from one of the local Apple Stores. Seems most stores got in at least a couple (I have been calling several bay area stores checking regularly), but most are simply putting them on display. Finally found a small store (which might have helped since they have limited shelf pace) that got in some 20" models (2) and was selling them (they just got them in today, Saturday, around noon).

Originally posted by ciparisI just unwrapped my new iMac Core Duo (20"), so if anyone would like something specific tested, give a yell. Caveat: It will have only 512MB for the next two days (Newegg time...).

Congratulations!

Could you download a 1080p trailer from Apple, play it, and use activity monitor to gauge processor usage?

Could you download a 1080p trailer from Apple, play it, and use activity monitor to gauge processor usage?

Do you have QuickTime Pro? Or any DV video files?

Okay, I currently have some Google Maps mashups open in Safari (we're doing real-estate searches), with iTunes streaming CBC Radio 3, and I played the X-Men 3 trailer in 1080P, zoomed to fit width (it was too large otherwise).

CPUs were evenly loaded, and ranged between 25-50% usage while all this was going on. No frame drops were visible. Scrubbing was smooth. I don't have QT Pro.

Originally posted by ciparisOkay, I currently have some Google Maps mashups open in Safari (we're doing real-estate searches), with iTunes streaming CBC Radio 3, and I played the X-Men 3 trailer in 1080P, zoomed to fit width (it was too large otherwise).

CPUs were evenly loaded, and ranged between 25-50% usage while all this was going on. No frame drops were visible. Scrubbing was smooth. I don't have QT Pro.

Nice

Thank you. Not to worry about QT pro. Hope you enjoy your new machine.